Comments

  • How can metaphysics be considered philosophy?
    we'll simply be offering a subjective, personal account, what we think is going on, not what really is going on. — Agent Smith

    This is the essence of science. There are many, many expressions of theoretical physics (string theory, loop quantum gravity, m-theory) which are not mutually compatible. They can't all be right and none of them are complete. Science is as much about speculation as it is about evidence.
  • How can metaphysics be considered philosophy?
    Further we are all taking positions on metaphysics. Take physicalists or naturalists. Seemingly - given the way metaphysics is a word often used perjoratively - far from woo woo, those two categories of people are making assertions about metaphysics. They have taken stands about metaphysics. — Bylaw

    :up:
  • How can metaphysics be considered philosophy?
    Philosophy means "love of wisdom". Wisdom requires knowledge, not belief, opinion, sentiment or personal view, else how does (read: "can") one 'know' who or what is wise? Unsupported and unsupportable metaphysical doctrines have gone nowhere — Zettel

    Knowledge does not spring full-formed like Athena from the head of Zeus. Knowledge grows out of a sense of wonder at some unknown, and is cultivated through systematic labour. And all of our knowledge has its limits, beyond which there are still further unknowns. At the limits of our knowledge lie our metaphysical presuppositions, assumptions (conscious or unconscious) that attempt to fit what we know into the framework of what we don't. If physics is the least meta-physical of all the sciences, it is also the least complete, inasmuch as 97% of everything that exists (dark matter and energy) is still nothing but a place-holder in an equation.

    Karl Popper has an excellent take on metaphysics acting as a guide and inspiration to further scientific inquiry, the metaphysical research program. This is the sense of metaphysics that I embrace: it is our attempt to structure our intuitions of the unknown, as we seek to transform that into knowledge.
  • Currently Reading
    Feuerbach: The Roots of Socialist Philosophy
    by Friedrich Engels
  • Currently Reading
    The Manuscript Found in Saragossa by Jan Potocki.

    Weird fiction from 1805 by a Polish count who thought he was a werewolf and killed himself with a silver bullet. As one reviewer says on Goodreads, "When there’s lesbian incest demon sex on page 11, you know you’re in for a ride."     — Jamal

    :gasp:
  • How Karate Should Be Taught
    ↪HardWorker
    Yes, I trained in Shito Ryu Itosu Kai Karate for about 15 years. I was hoping to get my black belt within 4 years, when I would have been 21, but moving around for school disrupted that somewhat, I trained in Kung Fu and Tai Chi, it ended up taking me almost 8 years. Then I trained up for my second dan - twice I had over a dozen black belt kata down cold. Both times my knee let go at the end of my intensive training (I had had several surgeries for a blown ACL and meniscus).

    So I can appreciate your perspective, I'm just offering the benefit of mine. :)
  • The Merely Real
    It must be quite disheartening for philosophers to hear someone say "This? This is merely real!" — Agent Smith

    There is no property of "reality." People comprehend reality by means of various metaphors, like solidity, continuity, causality, etc.. I used the expression "merely real" to contrast the relative intangibility of the mundane concept of reality with the inherent sublimity of the products of the mind, whose reality is sometimes discounted.
  • The Merely Real
    ↪Tom Storm
    :up:

    If it is possible to have a science of introspection then he is an expert. As I noted, his observations fit well with the modern model of embodied cognition in many ways.
  • The Merely Real
    ↪Agent Smith

    My take is that (in the context of consciousness which I take to be a definitive feature of what is in question) necessarily there exists some greatest thinking thing. Ergo that thing is by definition God (without attaching any further implications or speculations as to the nature of that thing, which, it would be invalid for inferior beings to do anyway).
  • The Merely Real
    Within this realm there is no ultimate satisfaction or peace to be found, because all is perishing, transient and ultimately empty. — Wayfarer

    He definitely sets up a dichotomy between the transient and the eternal. It leans towards a mystical (more than eastern) conception of some kind of transcendental, supra-personal consciousness:

    Perhaps this fear that I had...that is shared by so many others...is only the most humble, obscure, organic, almost unconscious form of that great and desperate resistance...against our mentally acknowledging the possibility of a future in which they are to have no part; a resistance which was at the root...of the difficulty that I found in imagining my own death, or a survival...in which I should not be allowed to take with me my memories, my frailties, my character, which did not easily resign themselves to the idea of ceasing to be....

    Sorry for all the ellipses. Even thus edited, Proust's sentences are voluminous. Therein lies the magic that eludes some readers, I think. When you successfully wrap your head around his page-long sentences, you get a real sensation of having grasped something beautiful and intricate, something that required as much effort to create as it does to perceive. The abundance and beauty of the variety of tropes, metonomy, synechdoche, prosopoeia, metaphor, and the way they all blend and merge seamlessly and effortlessly into one another. If anything is more than real, for me, this is.
  • The Merely Real
    It all has to do with expectations. Reality stays the same, but a heightened sense of reality occurs at times. No, there's nothing "more real". — jgill

    And yet, in encapsulating his disappointments, Proust's sublime text seems to create something more than real out of the shards of his expectations.
  • The Merely Real
    @Vera Mont @jgill @Tom Storm @Wayfarer
    It seems like this attitude is a denigration of the real in favour of the ideal, but that the ideal is also a form of embodied cognition. So everything about his experience of the sublimity of the church at Balbec is subjected to the "tyranny of the particular." These passages abound.

    The embodied cognition passages are even more interesting to me. He talks a lot about the omnipresence of habit, how habit governs the interplay of memory and perception: "most of our faculties lie dormant because they can rely on habit;" and "the general laws of memory...in turn are governed by still more general laws of habit." He describes how the "better part of our memories exist outside us," in environmental cues; and the awakening disappointment of his expectations of Balbec is an awareness "to which [his] body would have to become accustomed."

    "It is our noticing things that puts things in a room, our growing used to them that takes them away again."

    There is an omnipresent theme of conceptualization being an expansion and improvement of reality, hinging on the text, which is itself both a representation and an enhancement of reality. I just finished a book on embodied cognition which made a lot use of the idea that our thinking is fundamentally structured around conceptual metaphors. Proust's technique of characterizing of people in terms of their towns, and of towns in terms of their must unique feature, strikes me as very similar to conceptual metaphor, perceptual metaphor perhaps?

    To sum, I guess that someone who is abiding in a realm of "substantialized concepts" might well not agree with the general or traditional preconception of what constitutes reality.
  • How Karate Should Be Taught
    ↪HardWorker
    Not getting your black belt should not keep you from honing your skills. And patience certainly should be one of the weapons in your arsenal. Focus on the skill and expertise, not the rank.
  • Currently Reading
    Should've been finished much sooner, but attention issues and all. Just finished Locke's Essay for a second time. Majestic and a true classic. I will forever be a fan. — Manuel

    :up:

    I haven't read this since uni but I remember being struck by the humility of the man who could write such a work, but still refer to himself as a humble "under-labourer". A must-read-again for me too.
  • Respectful Dialog
    ↪Agent Smith
    Ditto! :rofl: :rofl:
  • Currently Reading
    The Birth of Tragedy: from the Spirit of Music
    by Friedrich Nietzsche
  • Belief Formation
    ↪Bylaw
    If you are agreeing with my suggestion, that allowing oneself to be guided or governed by external influences when we have necessarily the ability to evaluate those influences, is still a voluntary choice, then ok. If you are saying that we are affected by those influences before we are able to fully evaluate them (as with children) then we are talking about diminished capacity (relative to a normal, responsible adult). People are free beings. I'm currently reading a book whose precise thesis and theme is the way and extent to which our thoughts and actions are influenced by unconscious processes, and even that author acknowledges that we are not necessarily "enslaved to our unconscious conceptual systems." (Lakoff & Johnson, The Embodied Mind) Awareness of those subterranean influences is what enables us to counteract them. And awareness is both our gift and our responsibility.
  • Belief Formation
    I think it can force you to see the world in a certain way. — Bylaw

    It literally isn't forcing. It is tempting, urging, cajoling. People today are susceptible of this type of influence it is true, because of social and peer pressures, etc., etc., but it is always a choice to allow advertising to bypass reason, just as it is to allow social pressures of whatever kind to override our own ability to think.

    Anyone who can be literally forced to do something has a diminished capacity in some way. If you are forced at gunpoint to strangle a baby you have a legally diminished capacity that absolves you of responsibility (although you still had the actual ability to refuse). If a small child is forced to spend all his money on an expensive toy by advertising it is because that child lacked the adult capacity of reason and self-control, which is why there are limits to what children are allowed to do and why important decision-making authority resides with their parents. As Kant says, "I can never be forced by others to have an end."
  • Respectful Dialog
    ↪Pantagruel
    He is taking aim from the balcony, not rebutting your thesis.

    I carry an umbrella in case it rains.     — Paine

    :lol: :up:
  • Belief Formation
    Can we force people to believe things? — Andrew4Handel

    Belief cannot be forced, any more than can choice. It is an essential feature of human freedom. Advertising does not force, it attempts to persuade. Advertising does not remove free will, it attempts to circumvent reason.
  • Respectful Dialog
    This thread consist in impotent virtue signalling. — Banno

    The idea that virtue signalling is a negative would be valid if it were hypocritical. If it is presented and upheld as a model then it isn't virtue signalling, it is simply...virtue. Which I guess speaks to the the intentions of would-be detractors.
  • Respectful Dialog
    An intense debate is more fun, and I love conflict. — Judaka

    Debating inherently entails an element of sophistry in that the presentation is understood to be part of the argument, and that one should be able to argue either side of an issue equally effectively. And I don't question that this has a real effect. But it does tend to lend a lot of weight to the loudest voice. I agree there is an element of debate here, but I think this digital forum lends itself more to the exaggeration and abuse of the negative features of debating while realizing none of the benefit, which is the direct interchange of ideas a personal level. So maybe debating is not in all ways an ideal model of interaction (other than in an actual debate).
  • A re-think on the permanent status of 'Banned'?
    ↪neomac
    Not sure what a 'progressive banning' would look like :chin:     — Amity

    How about losing the ability to create new discussions as phase one. Then limiting number of daily posts to 1 as phase two. Lots of simple but fun ways that could be done. Good way to illustrate the difference between a right and a privilege.
  • Cavemen and Libertarians
    We have always experienced 'authority,' even in tiny groups. — universeness

    :up:
  • Respectful Dialog
    So yeah, obligation to treat others with respect is a fundamental part of philosophical discussion, otherwise the topic being discussed will never transform into new knowledge, it will just be a debate with fists that only solidifies the different opinions further into deep cognitive bias. — Christoffer

    :100:
  • Respectful Dialog
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover
    :up:

    And assuming the goal is truly productive, sharing of ideas, collaborative effort, the new depersonalized modalities may actually be limiting progress rather than enhancing it. Which is why I think focusing on the idea of civil dialogue is a legitimate topos, and not a snoozer.
  • Respectful Dialog
    Well, one may ask me. Isn't this just a good argument to keep respectful when faced with this subtler trolling. — Bylaw

    Yes. In fact, what you are describing possibly indicates an unexcavated difference in fundamental assumptions, the apples and oranges situation. I'd question your use of 'subtle trolling' as I think the definitive characteristic of trolling is that it is intentional and premeditated. Whereas abuse can also take place when both parties are attempting to reason in good faith.

    A big factor here is the problem of real-time digital interaction. Human beings have reasoned together cooperatively for millennia. There is a gravity conferred by the real presence of another human being that imposes an overall tenor of mutual respect on a verbal conversation. In digital communications, some people assume a tone they wouldn't dream of doing in person.
  • Respectful Dialog
    ↪Pantagruel :smirk: — 180 Proof
    :up:
  • Respectful Dialog
    ↪Pantagruel :yawn: — 180 Proof

    ...dogmatic slumber?
  • Respectful Dialog
    ↪Paine
    Well, there is discussion and there is dispute. When the dispute becomes fundamental enough, that's where it gets nasty. Christianity had a stranglehold on culture for centuries and didn't do it any favours. But when your talking civil rights and politics, that goes beyond mere polemic because it is directly tied with practical, fundamental differences in lifestyles that materially affect other people. So arguing about whether ostensive definitions are real, or how many angels fit on the head of a pin, isn't in the same category as arguing about whether there should be racial equality, or equitable redistribution of material wealth and opportunity. When a dispute degenerates into mutual disrespect, I'm sure both parties feel that they are being reasonable. I totally respect the ultra-wealthy as human beings, but they need to be taxed out of 90% of their shit and have their privileged influence permanently revoked.
  • Respectful Dialog
    My personal experience has been only learning the virtues of the dispassionate after losing my cool over and over again. The lessons keep coming. — Paine

    I hear that. My experience too, although more shooting off my mouth.

    It may be germane to point out how the matter of contentious arguments were the bread and butter of Classical Greek culture. One of the central themes in the Republic is how the rude and abusive challenge by Thrasymachus was transformed into the well-reasoned debate of later chapters. A number of Plato's dialogues were brawls peppered liberally with personal insult. That element was recognized as part of the "dialectic" even when criticized as inferior. — Paine

    Great point. I was wondering when the spirited debate point was going to be addressed in earnest. It can be interesting to try and figure out where to draw that line. As I said, I think the more there is a genuine mutual respect, the more 'spirited' things can become, productively.

    Another influence for me on the subject is Nietzsche saying that one has to be careful about who one bothers to oppose because the effort is also a recognition of their importance. That suggests that there is a balancing point where expressions of contempt cancel the object of defeating an idea. — Paine

    As above, if your spirited debate is based on mutual respect, then this is the result.
  • Respectful Dialog
    ↪Tom Storm
    :up:

    goal, model, standard...it could be realized empirically in a number of ways....
  • Respectful Dialog
    ↪Tom Storm
    Yes, the Lakoff I'm just reading has quite a bit to say about Kant's absolutism of morality and reason (specifically, that's it's just a by-product of fundamental cognitive metaphors therefore not truly absolute). However, just because an ideal may not exist in the sense of "pure reason" to me doesn't mean - or imply - that it cannot exist (and be approached) in terms of a goal.
  • Respectful Dialog
    But some people defend stances which are criminal — baker

    Yes, that would be de facto "uncivil" (certainly by Rawls' standard, which is public reasonableness).
  • Respectful Dialog
    That said, people come from different worldviews, cultures and sensitivities, what may be intended as a conversation in good faith may be perceived as unreasonable. Sometimes people become enraged by phrases or approaches which for them hold special resonance (in a bad way). And sometimes we are rude without intending to be. This can then provoke reactions and you know the rest... — Tom Storm

    Hmm. Yes, cultural relativism and all that, good point. And this unfortunately means that we could legitimately be immune to a reasonable argument if its basis is too far outside our familiar sphere. I just read something in Proust that speaks to this on the limits of the 'competence of genius':

    One may have had genius and yet not have believed in the future of railways or of flight, or, although a brilliant psychologist, in the infidelity of a mistress or a friend whose treachery persons far less gifted would have foreseen. (Within a Budding Grove)

    In this respect, our most cherished ideas are certainly like friends, to whose shortcomings we might be blissfully immune. Ideas and theories always exist in larger contexts, and it isn't always about what we perceive as internal consistency, is it?

    It's always a challenge to transcend personal relativism.
  • Respectful Dialog
    Operating under a pretence of civility when this is the case is not only dishonest and coddling, it is generally unproductive — DingoJones

    Maybe. But if one can operate under the pretense of civility then it must be possible to operate based upon genuine civility. I interpret this as saying, that is difficult.
  • Respectful Dialog
    In theory and intent, I agree. Alas, sometimes my temper gets away with me. I've gotten better over my years here. I give the forum credit for that. — T Clark
    :up:
    Agreed. Habits have to be exercised to be created. Growth is difficult.
  • Respectful Dialog
    Yes, but I also think this is a thing of the past, a mark of the social dinosaur. People outrude me all the time, so I always lose and they win — baker

    Really! I guess I am kind of a dinosaur at 58. What decade are you, if you don't mind me asking?
  • Respectful Dialog
    We have more power than we realize to produce something productive from it. — Joshs

    It's a laudable attitude to see it as a challenge. As long as it doesn't stay one-sided forever.
  • Respectful Dialog
    It’s about how enjoyable, productive, substantive, and welcoming a debate is. — Jamal
    @BC
    Too, I think the nature of the discussion is significant. Discussions can be more polemical, if people are on different sides of historically exclusive positions (e.g. idealism versus materialism); or they can be more collaborative, when trying to reason innovatively within a domain of basic consensus. I think the trick is to maintain an awareness of the collaborative nature of discussion, even while it is polemical.
Home » Pantagruel